How Food Regulations Make Us Less Healthy | Learn Liberty

Stop using pesticides and implement Companion plants around your crop to deter the bugs attacking it

This is ideology, not fact. If you live inside their box, it all makes sense. Unfortunately, the box has nothing to do with reality.

I feel like the only regulations should be with making food and drink safer, as well as healthier to eat. And also to make our markets more competitive with foreign markets. For example, some foods can only be grown in equatorial climates, and so US based farmers in that market have a severe disadvantage compared to farmers in say, Panama. So without subsidy regulations in that market, farmers in the US wouldn't be able to compete with the farmers near the equator, which isn't very good capitalism.

In a nut shell, regulations in the food industry should emphasize just two things: keep the markets fair, and keep the foods healthy. Any regulation that doesn't meet those two goals shouldn't exist.

Why are all of my recommendations to the side of this video filled with Peppa Pig and other toddler cartoons? The only thing I can think of was the animation in this video was especially childish looking.

Regulations suck. The same happens with the sugar industry.

I want American fast food and convenience store food to resemble that of its Japanese counterpart.

Food regulations are still needed. Just look at China a perfect example where there are no food regulations so you end up with melamine in your milk and infant formula.

Food regulations are soo overrated ... mouse poo, e-coli bacteria and saw dust are valueable ingredients in baby food ...

without regulation,
.. there will be food ,
from, cheap 'come from no where' 'unhealthy' to expensive 'healthy' food
some producer will fight to be cheap ..
some producer will fight to be healthy..
That will happen ... only that simple ....and nothing to do with KFC or McD

do you think this kind of free market logic can
works outside US, Europe, Japan and South Korea ??

A subsidy is a very different animal than a law stating you can not sell vegetables grown in toxic waste. This is a very stupid video that means absolutely nothing.

I think I missed the bit where he talked about health, as suggested by the title. Must've have been drowned out by all that libertarian rhetoric

Yes, regulations do produce distortions in supply and demand, that much is obvious. But I don't see how this provides a case for the cessation of all governmental food regulations. That would be mental.

these videos are a refreshing way to disseminate the freedom philosophy. Good job!

Subsidies to corn farmers makes it cheaper to use high fructose corn syrup. This is one reason why you can get a double cheeseburger for a dollar, while a salad is $4.99.

Maybe regulations on organic food let it become less accessible for people.

he makes an alright point, but never really explains how regulations make us less healthy

The problem is, gov't regulation or not, business that are supposed to compete with each other really don't. There's another video on this channel that explains how competing companies actually share all most all their information with each other. So I say what competition? The big whigs of these companies have their cocktail parties together. They mingle. The CEO of JC Panie and the CEO of Macy's share drinks and shoot the shit with each other. But we need to keep the gov. out of those parties

Whether or not a big business supports or opposes regulation depends on how much it expects to gain from the cartelizing benefits. The right amount of government regulation keeps the market free from pesky competitors, but too much regulation starts doing more harm than good to the business it affects. Increasing regulation doesn't address the effects of the cartel it creates and generally results in greater business-government cooperation as business lobbies for its removal.

Except you will never remove the idea of "buying" big government. Whenever have a qualifying power people will associate with it and develop commonalities to have a relationship. Those who don't have the resources can't develop it because they are centered in a smaller locus of society. People buy things in which that are already made. This use of buying though runs contradictory to that fact as if somehow money changed the product in the hands of the consumer.

When i study librarian arguments and reasoning I wonder who it is they are attempting to argue against. So regulations harm small businesses but, help big businesses? You're telling me that gov't is in bed with big business? What a revelation ! How could I have missed that? When you use the term "government" in place of "regulation" you are using doublespeak and you're missing the point. Regulations can be positive so long as the big business doesn't buy our representatives.

Funny is the fact that most of Learn Liberty 'professors' teach or have studied in very mediocre and/or religious universities. Also, Edward Stringhman actually teaches in a state university. Lol. The irony... Howard Baetjer also teaches in a state university. And so do many others of them. Want to know why all these so-called 'economists' studied and teach at very very mediocre state universities? Because they were too poor in economics and mathematics for the likes of Yale, Harvard, LSE, etc.

If you look at historical evidence, safety came as a consequence of competition between food producers. Don't forget that there is an allowable amount of foreign material allowed in packaged foods, which is a regulation that comes from the FDA. Does that mean it can't make someone sick? No, it just means that the FDA determined the safety vs. cost benefit, and not the companies themselves.

The government sure doesn't care about you, they care about lobbyists giving them money. So now you have corn in everything.

If a company sold eggs which were known to contain salmonella and people were hurt by it there would be a lot of news surrounding it. The cost of legal battles to the company would be damaging. The cost of lost business would be damaging. It would be more beneficial to the company to sell healthy food.

I first learned about the enormous cost of the "organic label" to small farmers when I worked for Whole Foods a while back. The reason why there are so few certified organic companies in the U.S. is because the government makes it so expensive to actually obtain a certification that the entire industry ends up being one big oligopoly.

Civil court still cost money to utilize, unless you have the money to pay for it, or are skilled enough to get your point across in a short time, then you are out of luck.

This is America, what sin is considered is not considered to be the law. An A.I? Do you know where A.I, technology is at? AI is only capable of reacting to some very basic situations, not on thinking at the level needed to spot lies. Then you have malfunction, if the machine is malfunctioning you could send a number of innocents to jail. If you want a better justice system go to law school, read all about how ours works, decide all the liberties everyone may want, then protect them. -Continued-

For that very reason our system is better now than the one you are proposing. The problem is court needs to be fair, protect peoples rights, and dish out justice. Its not always perfect, sometimes crooks get away. Though that will always be better than loosing our liberties.

... What I was saying is it would be economically impossible to fund a case long enough to win against a multi-million dollar company. Especially if it is just you versus them. Now I understand you are an idealist, you forget that the masses are idiots and if you left things to an online jury you would find a lot more criminals getting off. Look at how men respond when a cute girl is the one being charged. Regardless of her crime, they will side with her. _Continued_

I have no problem with the aspect of scientists learning about genetics, and the fact that we are "playing god," my issue is with the health concerns that publicly unlabeled GM crops present to the population. Genetic modification does not scare me; I am only concerned with the implications that current GM crops have.

Shale we ban all advertisements as an Objection to Liberty? Now we need a department of truth in garage sale advertising and the like. I do not think it is rational for a person to claim they under the mental control of an advertiser and made bad or destructive decisions by their own hand but not by their conscious decision. It's trying to replace personal responsibility. The only alternate to voluntary exchange is involuntary exchange. That is tyranny.

But what I'm saying is that when we think we're voluntarily buying what we desire, we're not. Companies manipulate us. People think Soda A tastes better than Soda B (even if they're actually the same) entirely because of the pretty packaging or they buy a more expensive car insurance policy from the company with the funniest commercials.

That's what I try to tell him, but he's too busy lifting.

No, Dan eats paleo and is fond of saying "Sugar is poison." All the time. When he's not tweeting about lifting. But I don't have time for your dichotomies; I've got to get back to stopping beating my wife.

Try this for a change: Googe: "What scares you about GE foods"

Nathan seem to think that GMO is some sort of substance and that substance is by definition toxic and carcinogenic since Monsanto is evil. Something like that.

So you believe that all GMO foods on the market are carcinogenic and toxic?

yo if rent-seeking is the price we have to pay to avoid a repeat of the jungle then i'm all for it

Well, scientists conduct their tests on GM crops, which we then eat. The tests say they are carcinogenic and toxic. I just explained how it is likely that we eat more than two foods that use GM corn daily. Ergo, we eat carcinogenic and toxic food three times a day.

Please explain your logic in the statement: "we are eating carcinogenic and toxic food three times a day" Is that factually correct statement? Does the current scientific consensus back that statement up?

I just used logic, as concerned consumers do. We have a super surplus of monsanto corn, therefore we have corn starch and corn syrup in a lot of our foods that don't necessarily need them. If we eat food from our supermarkets, we are likely eating more than two contaminated foods daily. Being that there is evidence (which I provided) that GMOs prove a threat, than we are eating these foods likely three times a day. If you just think for a sec, then you might get my logic.

Any set of standards by their very nature are arbitrary. Lobbying groups seek to establish standards with which their partners can easily comply. These new standards become a benchmark which other new competitors must meet in order to sell their products as certified organic. Organic v. Conventional may be standards on the consumer or producer side of the house, but they are also restricted in terms of market exchange by governing regulations which are underlying in the industry as a whole.

Organic isn't small or big business. It's a set of standards that have to be met by the producer. You don't have to grow organic, but if you sell an item as organic, you have to meet this standard. What an idiotic video. I swear this organization is designed specifically for the dumbest Americans.

That's right, that was not my point. I'm glad you know at least that by now. And by your last two post I can't take you seriously anymore. You have gone from a 'concerned consumer' to conspiracy nut. "we are eating carcinogenic and toxic food three times a day" I wonder when Godwin's law is going to kick in?

Actually, you don't need govt to do that. For example, firms such as Fish Legal provide environmental regulation services without need of tax money or govt fiat, and they're quite successful. And besides, aren't there too many elected officials more concerned with the next election cycle than the big picture?

I don't think your point was that we are eating carcinogenic and toxic food three times a day. Anyways, even if Monsanto was the only company poisoning our food (which it isn't) it would still be a huge deal, being that Monsanto is a huge company, and that no company should be able to do what the GMO industry does.

local farmers don't have to have their food certified as organic, they choose to.